Slashdot Mirror
NY Judge Rules IP Addresses Insufficient To Identify Pirates
milbournosphere writes "New York Judge Gary Brown has found that IP addresses don't provide enough evidence to identify pirates, and wrote an extensive argument explaining his reasoning. A quote from the judge's order: 'While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of U.S. homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff's film.' Perhaps this will help to stem the tide of frivolous mass lawsuits being brought by the RIAA and other rights-holders where IP addresses are the bulk of the 'evidence' suggested."
Some of them are teachable.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Thank you Judge Gary Brown
AccountKiller
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
Also, this.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think if someone made bomb threats from an IP address, the FBI would FULLY investigate, because jailing the wrong person means the bomb still goes off, where the RIAA doesn't care if they sue the wrong person.
Surely that reinforces the point, though? Criminal cases have higher standards of proof than civil ("beyond reasonable doubt" compared to "on the balance of probabilities"), so if it's not enough for a civil case it sure as hell isn't enough for a criminal one.
If a search warrant required as much evidence as a conviction, there would be no point to search warrants.
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea.
I think you've got those backwards.
OK, listen, if you leave this unlocked then anyone who finds it can download anything. They can download child porn, illegal movies, terrorist documents, whatever, and it's all linked to you.
Well that sounds bad, better lock it up.
Right. OK, so the first thing you do is open your browser and go to one nine two dot one six ...
Wait, what's a browser?
Just double-click on the blue "E".
Got it. OK, I type in one nine two ...
Wait, not in the Bing search bar, you type it into the address field.
What's the address field?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
A lot of people still have WEP only routers. My parents are some of those people. They are not tech people, they bought a router back in the day when WEP was all you got. It still works so they won't get a new one.
They aren't the only ones either. While I don't see a whole lot of APs from my house, of the ones I do see two are WPA1, two are WEP, none (except mine) are WPA2.
And if we want to start to make it illegal to have bad security, well then we first need to start with door locks. Residential houses always have shitty locks. They are just regular ass locks from Home Depot that are vulnerable to bumping, ice picking, have no key control, and so on. You can get better locks no problem, they just cost a whole lot more so people don't bother.
However if you want to say "You have to buy a new router any time the old ones are found to have security issues, otherwise you are liable for any breakins," then I think you also have ot say "You have to buy better locks, otherwise you are liable for any breakins."
That depends. The parking ticket thing was standing between a city government and a revenue stream. That is known to be the most dangerous place to stand in all of existence.
I was in a private residence, they had no rights to order me to do anything, because I was not hindering their investigation, nor was I doing or involved in anything illegal. If the cops can go into any residence and order the occupants around and arrest people for not "not following orders" ... then I have a HUGE problem with that society. And you don't?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This still means that an IP address is sufficient for them to seize and search your computer hard disks and such, so if you have corroborating evidence there you'd still be fucked.
For a criminal matter, an IP address might be enough by itself to issue a search warrant.
Luckily, the copyright infringement that is being done in file sharing doesn't fall under the "criminal" section of copyright law.
While agree with the Judge, it's not nearly going far enough. I used to work in a department that handled copyright infringement complaints for a large ISP. When the copyright owner makes a complaint, by law the ISP is required to take action. But there are multiple problems with the entire premise.
1. The complaint comes in via an unverifiable email. The ISP has no idea who really sent it. As any ISP knows, spoofing an email is about the simplest thing for a teenage hacker to perform.
2. Even if the ISP could verify the sender, they have no idea if the sender is really the content owner. In fact, the ISP has absolutely no way to find out who the content owner is. This is something, that by its very definition would need to be decided in a court of law.
3. The ISP has no idea if the person sending the email is telling the truth in the least. Even if they are telling the truth they have no idea how competent their methods are. All they have is an email that says they "saw" the user download some content they own. They could have made it up, they could have terrible methods for detection. I believe there was one case where a university student managed to get DMCA notices sent to several campus printers IP addresses.
4. And most importantly, the ISP KNOWS most of the complaints are total BS. I personally saw at least 25% of the complaints that came in were against IP addresses that didn't have customers on them... or belonged to network devices we owned.
The entire premise that someone can connect to a torrent and then say that every IP address that their software tells them is connecting to that torrent is a pirate is asinine. There's a simple solution to your problem media industry... stop price gouging. Work WITH and not against netflix, pandora, and the like. Make it easier to pay you than it is to pirate... and the pirate community will die. Humans follow the path of least resistance. It's illegal to run red lights, but people still do it all the time, because it's easier than stopping. How do they really stop people from red lights? Take them out and put in a round-a-bout.
No, you loan your car to someone. Therefore you are responsible. If someone steals your car and crashes into a bus full of nuns, you aren't.
You may be able to make a case that if the person billed for the IP address would be responsible for guests, but if the kid next door is "stealing" internet from you then you shouldn't be.
Its an analogy fail. Get over yourself.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.